2006 Austin Conference
Every year we run into pretty much the same situation:
members tend to be fast in making hotel reservations but
slow in sending in their convention registrations.
Although the convention registrations are abnormally
slow this year (250 has been average for past 3 years), we
have so far signed up 147 attendees. We
NAPPS Membership Continues to Grow
We accepted 26 new members on April 1, and 19
applicants are being screened for acceptance May 1. The
Texas Process Servers Association has played a major
role in these numbers. Five of the new members are from
Texas and five of the applicants are Texans.
Process Servers and the Trespassing Dilemma
The trespassing issue is a frequent subject on the PI and
process server Internet forums. Many process servers are
unsure of what they can and can’t do and where they can
and can’t go when serving process at a defendant’s home
or place of business. And the laws dealing with trespass
and obstructing the service of process are, unfortunately,
of little benefit to private process servers. There is a wide
discrepancy in the application of these laws in those states
that have them, and this adds to the confusion. The
frustration comes in when you discover that the law you
thought protected all persons who are authorized to serve
process really only applies to law-enforcement officers.
In our last issue of The Docket Sheet (Jan-Feb), we
printed a legal opinion from the Tennessee Attorney
General in response to the question: “Does the sheriff or
civil process server have the right to enter upon private
property to serve any legal writ or process?
In this issue we print two more legal opinions—from the
Texas Attorney General, which addresses the trespass
issue while serving process at a business location, and the
Virginia Attorney General, who addresses both those
subjects as well as the application of Virginia’s
obstruction of service statute
These three attorney general opinions give a good
overview of applicable laws in various states on serving
at business locations and on private property. They also
cite the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the
Court has held that a place of business is entitled to the
same Fourth Amendment protection as a private
residence. We consider these opinions to be a valuable
educational tool and will report more of them in future
issues.
Charlie Fineberg in Race for County Office
Several members have alerted me to a recent news item
about Memphis, Tennessee, member Charlie Fineberg
being one of three Republican candidates campaigning
for a position on the Shelby County Commission District
1. It’s a wide-open race because there is no incumbent.
The current commissioner is giving up her seat to take a
shot at becoming Shelby County Clerk. Fineberg,
according to the article, is facing well-financed
opposition. One of the candidates, a retired banker, is
running strong with a $100,000 war chest. Another, a 33-
year-old Federal Express financial analyst, is using shoe
leather to go door-to-door on his $10,000 campaign
budget. And in the words of the news item: “Then, there’s
Memphis process server Charles Fineberg, the selfproclaimed
‘rogue’ candidate” who is running an
effective but low-budget campaign. “If you don’t have it
you don’t spend it,” Fineberg said. “It’s that simple.”
Since there are no Democrats running for this seat, the
winner of the May Republican primary will get the seat.
Maryland Member Indicted on Perjury Charges
Another news item brought to our attention takes a sharp
turn in another direction. Kevin Fitzgerald, 44, a NAPPS
member in Baltimore and his father, co-owners of
Patrick Investigations Inc., a debt collection agency in
Lutherville, have been indicted on conspiracy, perjury
and subordination of perjury charges pertaining to the
preparation and filing of false affidavits of service. The
Maryland Attorney General is reported to have said in a
statement that “in literally hundreds of cases,” the courts
issued default judgments against civil defendants who had
never been served. The two men lied on affidavits of
service—or had employees lie—about serving papers on
defendants, according to Kevin Enright, a spokesman for
the attorney general. Ground zero for discovery of the
alleged fraud is the Towson District Court, where
hundreds of apparently fraudulent affidavits of service
were reportedly discovered and turned over to the
criminal investigations division of the Attorney General’s
office. Maryland State Police and the U.S. Postal
Inspectors are said to have aided in the investigation.
2006 Legislation
Florida
HB 871—Telephone calling records. This is a toughly
worded bill that would make it a crime to buy or falsely
obtain another person’s telephone calling record or to sell
or offer to sell the record. First offense is a first-degree
misdemeanor; second offense is 3rd degree felony; third
offense is three strikes and you’re out. This bill is going
through without much opposition.
Georgia
HB 705—The GAPPS process server licensing bill. It
was introduced 3/4/05 and carried over to the current
session. Bill was amended/substituted on 2/9/06 by House
Judiciary Committee.
Kentucky
HB 537 is a 50-page bill that revamps virtually every fee
the state has. The only one of interest to process servers is
the increase of the Sheriff’s fee for service of process—
from $20 to $30.
Louisiana
HB 598—Would give judges the authority to appoint
private process servers to serve citations and subpoenas
without first sending the documents to the sheriff.
Currently the sheriff gets first bite at the apple, and if he
can’t do the job it can be given to a private person. Under
the new rule the plaintiff would still have to include in his
motion good reasons for wanting a private person rather
than the sheriff to serve the paper.
Michigan
HB 4133—Repeals prohibition of Sunday service.
Permits process to be served on Sunday but not while a
person is attending a worship meeting of a 501(c)(3) tax
exempt religious organization or within 500 feet of that
property. Signed by the Governor 11/05.
Mississippi
SB 2067—Would make it a crime for any person to make
or cause to be made any false return of service of process.
Would make the crime a felony with a fine of $5,000 and
imprisonment for 5 years. Bill introduced 1/4/06 but died
a quick death 1/31/06 in Insurance Committee.
SB 2876—Would increase from $25 to $35 the fee
charged by Marshals and constables for the service of
process.
New Hampshire
HB 1153—An Act establishing a commission to study the
laws and rules relating to subpoenas, summonses, and
complaints. This state can use a revamping of its civil
rules but this committee had on its plate such subjects as
the difference between criminal and civil process and the
feasibility of prohibiting service of process on Sundays.
“Inexpedient to Legislate” was the cause of its death on
4/13/06.
Rhode Island
HB 7099—Would establish the Private Detective Act to
give statewide licensing to private investigators (who
currently are licensed at the local level). The RI attorney
general would be the licensing authority. Introduced
2/7/06; amended/substituted 4/10/06.
Wyoming
I reported last year that Wyoming passed a Sheriff’s fee
increase for service of process. I was wrong. The bill
died. But all was not lost. Life saver Robert Tate, the
NAPPS member who got the Wyoming Supreme Court
(in 2003) to amend the Rules of Civil Procedure to permit
private process servers to serve without appointment, has
come through again. He worked to pass an increase in the
fee for serving process, from $20 to $35 (for the first
three attempts). Bill was signed by the Governor and is
effective 7/1/06.
